Friendship Circle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203270890
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
3102800955
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,198,266
Expenses
$2,442,828
Assets
$1,454,642
Liabilities
$1,864,001

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL J RAV-NOY (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL J RAV-NOY (President): $234,500 total reported compensation
  • MIRIAM RAV-NOY (PROG DIRECTOR): $122,000 total reported compensation
  • NECHAMA SEREBRYANSKI (PROG COORDINATOR): $115,207 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide assistance and support to the families of children with special needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

One of the organization's core missions is to enrich, inspire and motivate teens toshare of themselves with children and teens who have various disabilities. Currently, 425 volunteers (about 85% of them are teens) donate their time and energies to this cause. These volunteers collectively spend about 10,000 hours a year with the children. Evaluated at $10 per hour, this computes to a value of $131,000 annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.5%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.58 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.3%; rating input score 91; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.28; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.5% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $234K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.